memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Vulcan-Romulan history
Removed POV/emotionally-loaded words Hi. I removed the words "Thankfully" and "Tragically" from these two lines: : "Thankfully, Data and Spock were able to...." and : "Tragically, a supernova destroyed Romulus...." They are editorializing – the reader, IMO, should be free to determine his/her reaction to these events rather than being told how to view them. Some might think it unfortunate Data and Spock succeeded or that the destruction of Romulus was a terrific event. Consider Arturis, who thought it very bad Janeway helped the Borg stop Species 8472 from destroying all life in the galaxy. ( ) Most might see that as a good thing, even though it ended up saving the Borg (along with everyone else), but Arturis did not. Plus those were rather unencyclopedic-sounding and non-standard English (ie, "improper", if you want to be a Descriptivist). :) Just my $0.02. Feel free to change it back of course! After all: I didn't do the heavy lifting and write the article. ^_^ Kudos to whoever did. --[[User:Cepstrum|'Cepstrum']] (talk) 12:17, November 2, 2010 (UTC) :Simply changing editorializing words like that does not require a large comment like this on the talk page. Just put a note in the edit summary about it. Also, please be sure that you are linking things to the correct places. "Janeway" is not a link to "Kathryn Janeway". -- sulfur 12:27, November 2, 2010 (UTC) Oh dear. It seems I can't ever do anything quite right! I misused the talk page, and made the boneheaded, rudimentary mistake of not pipelinking Janeway to Kathryn Janeway! I guess I still don't quite have a handle on how to use talk pages correctly. I had thought that I was making some rather dramatic changes to the style and "feel" of the article and wanted to ensure I showed the changes I was making and why. They weren't simple typos or grammar bugs but altering the POV. That's why I wanted to have a record here stating what I did and why. In the future, I'll try not to do this and just leave a brief edit summary. Is this right then: article talk are for pre-emptive discussions about making major changes to an article, not merely describing what you've already done? [[User:Cepstrum|'Cepstrum']] (talk) 16:03, November 5, 2010 (UTC) Rename Ought this not to be renamed to "Vulcan-Romulan reunification"? Unlike the Xindi reunification, in which all the parties are Xindi, that is, Xindi-whatevers, Romulans are not called "Romulan Vulcans". --LauraCC (talk) 17:25, April 10, 2018 (UTC) :What terms were used on screen? -- Capricorn (talk) 04:21, April 19, 2018 (UTC) "Vulcan reunification" - never in dialogue. "Xindi reunification" - ditto. Only "reunification" for both - "reunification of our people" in . In addition, calls it "unification" - mentions Mordan IV's unification. There's also uses of "unify" - and ."Unified" - (unified world). --LauraCC (talk) 16:26, April 19, 2018 (UTC) :Personally I'm a minemalist that in such cases would prefer something like "Reunification (Vulcan) over the less transparant way it's disambiguated. But since that's not really how things are generally done here, yeah sure, "Vulcan-Romulan reunification" seems better then what we currently have. -- Capricorn (talk) 19:59, April 22, 2018 (UTC) :: Several points. First, why does this page not once refer to the Romulan underground movement? It seems like a key motivator for this so-called reunification. In fact, that movement is really the only seemingly true internal supporter of the this movement on Romulus. The rest was a governmental ruse/plot/what-have-ya for what was to become (or was always an underlining point) of what Sela described as the (failed) "Romulan conquest of Vulcan". :: Second, more of a just-a-thought thought: if they left Vulcan and then were returning to Vulcan (if only metaphorically), it would be a Vulcan reunification. Sure, those Vulcans did change their names to "Romulans" and the two more-or-less became considered *different* species, the purpose and use of the term "reunification" would be to indicate the 'restoration of political unity', hence "Vulcan reunification". I mean Dominion War wasn't just a war only involving the Dominion, but is so named. Regardless, this is all the more reason for the following: :: With the above said, this seems more like a case for the development of a Vulcan-Romulan history page (a la Human-Klingon history), as I'm sure both the Romulan and Vulcan pages both share comparable redundant information, and this is sort of a climactic event of that history that neither happened nor didn't happen, especially as the whole last sentence taken from Star Trek (2009) is so vague in terms of reunification, but not as much in showing that the two species have another event in their shared histories. Doing this would also help draw the aforementioned unmentioned "Romulan underground movement" into a more prominent acknowledgement than it is currently receiving, while avoiding an further discussions on what to call this page, when it would just be sectioned a "Reunification" in the article describing their shared histories. --Alan (talk) 14:14, April 23, 2018 (UTC) That seems like a good plan. Earlier, I had also been proposing Vulcan-Human history (see Memory Alpha:List of unwritten cultural articles.) --LauraCC (talk) 16:36, April 24, 2018 (UTC) :Vulcan-Romulan history seems like a very useful page to have, but named or not, reunification seems like an important enough concept in the two cultures that I'd be disappointed if it didn't have its own page. Purely intuitively it seems to me like it should. Though, if that's what everyone else feels should happen, I'm not going to stand in the way either. :As a sidenote, since you mention Human-Klingon history as a model: I don't think that page has worked out very well. Klingon history has all the info Human-Klingon history has, but written up much better, and it's not even out of place bc so much of what we know of post-first contact Klingon history involves interaction with the Federation. Plus, Human-Klingon history conflates Humans and the Federation. I sure hope Vulcan-Romulan history fares better. -- Capricorn (talk) 22:19, April 24, 2018 (UTC) :: Nevertheless, you got to love the "a la" qualifier, it was never meant to be an exact comparison. As evident by the mere existence of this article, it is fair to say that they two species or "cousins" do have the luxury of a much more common and shared history than the Klingons and Humans, or Human-Romulan history. Perhaps Romulan-Klingon relations would have been a better model.--Alan (talk) 22:49, April 24, 2018 (UTC) I'm not saying both shouldn't exist. Reunification page focuses on that aspect of relationship, whereas on the V-R history page, it would be a smaller section that gave a short overview and directed people who wanted to go more in depth on that topic to the reunification page. --LauraCC (talk) 14:57, April 26, 2018 (UTC) :: If you wish to pursue that course of action, I think the best way to begin that type of pursuit is to first tackle the subject of the subject. We are missing, with both Unification (a mere redirect to the episode that precedes the actual episode that speaks of the "reunification") and Reunification (a disambiguation page that does not define the terms that it's uniting unto itself), two opportunities to define either as a stand-alone term. We should start by doing that. Create a "Unification" page off the existing redirect, combine "Reunification", and define both terms ("X once" and "X once again") and then see where this page fits. But as far as creating combined history pages about two species that don't share a common history, it is probably more in line with being an altogether terrible idea, unless we're talking about the Andorians/Aenar, the Romulans/Vulcans, or the Xindi. --Alan (talk) 16:22, April 26, 2018 (UTC)